Curious...

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Thu May 15, 2008 4:47 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:How can you seriously consider Field 'propulsion' and "proper aerodynamic “angle of attack”" in the same thought?

The use of Fields itself negates the need to conform to aerodynamics.


Regardless of what technology may be used for propulsion, this does not mean the vehicle is free from aerodynamic forces when flying in the atmosphere. So angle of attack DOES still matter, and asymmetric forces produced when flying at any angle of attack must still be considered and compensated for. As such, if the same propulsion tech is going to be used to produce stabilizing forces and moments, they must also be able to counter buffet and airmass irregularities (gusts, winds).

Ray


The only thing I really wish to point out is the possibility that people are seeing 'exotic plasmas' that are driven by gravitic and magnetic fields, not aerodynamics. That happens to be consistent with what people actually report consistently over time.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am


Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Thu May 15, 2008 5:33 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Incorrect. And as a side note, it is a bit annoying that you continually ignore or otherwise do not address when I point out your statements do not fit with what we know about aerodynamics. I'd respect you more if you just admit you were wrong, and then we can move on.


Fine Ray,... Will you then admit that I have a RC 'saucer' (less than $30) that 'flies' better than the 'Avrocar'?

Also, have I not said repeatedly that 'Fields' were at play accourding to the observations and NOT aerodynamics?

You Can Call Me Ray wrote: The Avrocar was, by design, based on a ducted fan engine. That means it would never work exo-atmospherically. Hence, it most certainly WAS designed to test the viability of the disc shape as an Airframe.


Last I checked that technology had been perfected.

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:But at that time, it most certainly WAS too unstable as a potential airframe. Furthermore, I have mentioned to you that using today's computer technology which can use feedback to close control loops extremely quickly (frame rates of 100 Hz and more), that it is very likely we could develop artificial stability for the Avrocar configuration. This is my specialty.


Then I have no doubt that other 'ellipsiod' shapes would be likewise stabilized.

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Also, the reason the Avrocar was never flown out of ground effect is due to good flight test practice called the envelope expansion technique. With a hovering vehicle you do not leave ground effect until you verify adequate stablity and control margins. Given the Avrocar had negative stability and control margins, it was not permitted to leave the safety of ground proximity.


Exept for the fact that it was never meant to leave ground effect in the first place? Right?

BTW, how do we go from an obscure Military contract that 'Flopped', to be a definative study of the validity of general shapes as Airframes?

I really wasn't being 'fascetious'. The truth is that the leading hypothesis now is that 'exotic plasmas' are responsible for the vast majority of the 'Unknowns' people have reported over the years.


Got references that back this claim that it is the leading hypothesis? I'd like to check them out.

Thanks,
Ray


See the MoD's 'Condign' Report.

See Project Hessdalen.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby Access Denied » Thu May 15, 2008 6:26 am

lost_shaman wrote:The only thing I really wish to point out is the possibility that people are seeing 'exotic plasmas' that are driven by gravitic and magnetic fields, not aerodynamics. That happens to be consistent with what people actually report consistently over time.

Uh no, you need to read the Condign report again. The (keyword) theory is (presumably) naturally occurring “dusty” atmospheric plasmas (which would be essentially massless) are “driven” by electrostatic forces… and perhaps to a lesser extent other forces. This (keyword) might explain many observations involving seemingly “intelligent” maneuvers (due to repulsion/attraction) and the ability to “instantly” accelerate (due to near zero mass). These are not “flying saucers” were talking about, it would be something more like ball lighting….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

Also LS, I must warn you that you are dangerously close to exceeding my tolerance for violations of our board rules regarding the use of circular reasoning and failure to concede a point… unlike ATS your debate tactics won’t work here but like ATS you may find yourself post-banned if you don’t change your tune immediately. :)

Cool?
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu May 15, 2008 6:35 am

lost_shaman wrote:Fine Ray,... Will you then admit that I have a RC 'saucer' (less than $30) that 'flies' better than the 'Avrocar'?


Of course I will admit it "flies" (hovers) better than an Avrocar!

Also, have I not said repeatedly that 'Fields' were at play accourding to the observations and NOT aerodynamics?


Now it is YOUR turn to stop ignoring what I am saying! Did I not just establish above that, since it is moving through an airmass, that aerodynamics are still in play? You seem to be saying aerodynamics have nothing to do with it (and meanwhile cannot quantify this "field" effect). If this is what you are saying, you are wrong. Admit it. Whenever a solid body is moving through a fluid, there are aerodynamic forces created. Whether or not those forces are being used to generate lift or propulsive force, THEY EXIST by the nature of the airmass-body "field effect". Now please be an honorable gentleman and address my point!!! [-o<

You Can Call Me Ray wrote: The Avrocar was, by design, based on a ducted fan engine. That means it would never work exo-atmospherically. Hence, it most certainly WAS designed to test the viability of the disc shape as an Airframe.


Last I checked that technology had been perfected.


If you please: What technology are your referring to when you say "that technology". And again, I have said we can stabilize an Avrocar with today's technology. So I miss your point again.

Then I have no doubt that other 'ellipsiod' shapes would be likewise stabilized.

Sure, and I have also said we could stabilize a brick. So what? :roll:

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Also, the reason the Avrocar was never flown out of ground effect is due to good flight test practice called the envelope expansion technique. With a hovering vehicle you do not leave ground effect until you verify adequate stablity and control margins. Given the Avrocar had negative stability and control margins, it was not permitted to leave the safety of ground proximity.


Exept for the fact that it was never meant to leave ground effect in the first place? Right?


Again, wrong. Do you do any research before you make such statements? I'm not going to let you ignore this one. Please admit you are wrong. It was intended to fly out of ground effect. But control problems prevented it from achieving what was intended:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avrocar#Testing


BTW, how do we go from an obscure Military contract that 'Flopped', to be a definative study of the validity of general shapes as Airframes?


Why do you word this as if they must be mutually exclusive? It wasn't "obscure" it was classified. And it was a purposeful effort to see if you could make this shape into a VTOL aircraft. Your points are exceedingly lost on me, lost shaman!!! :?

See the MoD's 'Condign' Report.

See Project Hessdalen.


Thanks, I will check them out.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Fri May 16, 2008 1:51 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:

Now it is YOUR turn to stop ignoring what I am saying! Did I not just establish above that, since it is moving through an airmass, that aerodynamics are still in play? You seem to be saying aerodynamics have nothing to do with it (and meanwhile cannot quantify this "field" effect). If this is what you are saying, you are wrong. Admit it. Whenever a solid body is moving through a fluid, there are aerodynamic forces created. Whether or not those forces are being used to generate lift or propulsive force, THEY EXIST by the nature of the airmass-body "field effect". Now please be an honorable gentleman and address my point!!! [-o<



Hey Ray,

When you say, "You seem to be saying aerodynamics have nothing to do with it", the "it" I was talking about is UFOs/UAP actually observed and reported where the leading hypothesis is that these (a significant percentage of the ~5% of observations that are of interest) are exotic plasmas. As such the aerodynamics of 'solid bodies' simply would not be at play here nor is it reported.

Otherwise, I completely agree with you (concerning aerodynamics and 'solid bodies' or Airframes). I disagreed that the discoidal shape in general is too unstable to 'fly' based on the Avrocar as the example that supposedly ends the discussion. *throws Frisbee*

Having to make two separate points about discoidal shapes in general (UFO's/UAP, aerodynamics) given my limited time lately on the same thread with two different people has likely caused some confusion. I'm sorry for that, if that's the case.


You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
If you please: What technology are your referring to when you say "that technology". And again, I have said we can stabilize an Avrocar with today's technology. So I miss your point again.


I thought you were talking about early VOTL technology.

You apparently didn't miss my point at all. If you can "stabilize an Avrocar with today's technology" doesn't that just show that the original "Avrocar" was a bad or primitive design in the first place?

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
Then I have no doubt that other 'ellipsoid' shapes would be likewise stabilized.

Sure, and I have also said we could stabilize a brick. So what? :roll:


So what?

O.k. well the last time I personally threw a Brick it didn't do much. On the other hand a well thrown Frisbee is quite stable and often impressive.

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
Again, wrong. Do you do any research before you make such statements? I'm not going to let you ignore this one. Please admit you are wrong. It was intended to fly out of ground effect. But control problems prevented it from achieving what was intended:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avrocar#Testing


Maybe I misspoke Ray about the ground effect. My understanding was that the Avrocar would be something akin to a 'flying' Jeep that could move troops over rough terrain but at very low altitudes. So you're right I mispoke about ground effect.

Also reading you're wikipedia reference, design problems fill the article. My first statement concerning the Avrocar in this thread was this...

"If you're talking about the Avro Car, then yeah that was unstable mainly because (of) it's design, IMO." - 5/11/08

Same post I also said...

"Of course this has nothing to do with UFOs/UAP because the interactions of 'UFOs/UAP ' with Fields rather than aerodynamics is apparently being observed." - 5/11/08


If I'm wrong about the points I wish to make then at least you can see here that I'm consistent! :wink:
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Sat May 17, 2008 9:54 am

Access Denied wrote:Uh no, you need to read the Condign report again. The (keyword) theory is (presumably) naturally occurring “dusty” atmospheric plasmas (which would be essentially massless) are “driven” by electrostatic forces… and perhaps to a lesser extent other forces. This (keyword) might explain many observations involving seemingly “intelligent” maneuvers (due to repulsion/attraction) and the ability to “instantly” accelerate (due to near zero mass). These are not “flying saucers” were talking about, it would be something more like ball lighting….



AD,

You're right I probably shouldn't have said 'gravitic' in reference to forces UAP are "driven" by. I misspoke, I'll gladly retract that and admit I should have said electrostatic forces. The point I was making remains unchanged after this correction. i.e. electrostatic forces are at play not the aerodynamic forces of lift and drag etc.

I have to respectfully disagree with you that the Condign report's UAPs are different than the objects people report that might be labeled as the "flying saucers" we are talking about here. The very first thing you read in the Condign report in the Preface of the Executive summary, for example, is this quote from Winston Churchill.

"What does all this stuff about flying saucers amount to? What can it mean? What is the truth?. Let me have a report at your convenience". - W.S. Churchill, 28th July 1952

Let me now quote from the Preface again immediately following the Churchill quote above,... "The topic of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) has remained an enigma since well before the Prime Minister's remarks above. Since earliest recorded history probably only two two key facets have changed - there are now more UAP reported, and there are also more objects in the sky which can be misreported" - Executive Summary, Preface, Para 1

One of the specific shapes that the report specifically mentions in the second sentence of the Introduction to the Executive summary is the "disc" shape!

"They (UAP - L_S) are typically spherical, disc, torroidal or cigar shaped." - Executive Summary, Introduction, Para 1

When I was talking about the early uniform use of "Disk/Disc" by the Military as a reference to the phenomena you yourself said "it means the same thing as “flying saucer”.

Clearly the Condign report is in fact discussing the same "flying saucers" that "we" are talking about right? IMO it is anyway.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby Access Denied » Sat May 17, 2008 4:04 pm

First of all, thank you LS for showing a willingness to acknowledge points made by others. That is the stuff meaningful and productive discussions are made of…. otherwise we all might as well just go bang our heads against a wall. :)

lost_shaman wrote:The point I was making remains unchanged after this correction. i.e. electrostatic forces are at play not the aerodynamic forces of lift and drag etc.

OK but that doesn’t change the fact that aerodynamic forces would be at play if we’re talking about alien spaceships or man made “flying saucers” as the source of some UFO/UAP sightings. The point I was making was that irrespective of whatever hypothetical method of propulsion is used (e.g. “antigravity”) aerodynamic forces can not be ignored and the “flying saucer” design born out of a myth regarding the true nature of Kenneth Arnold’s sighting in 1947 (the genesis of the modern UFO era) and popularized in science fiction and by folks like Stanton Friedman makes no sense from a technical standpoint. It’s a poor choice of design. Can you concede this point?

As a reminder for folks, here’s what Kenneth Arnold actually claims he saw…

Image



lost_shaman wrote:I have to respectfully disagree with you that the Condign report's UAPs are different than the objects people report that might be labeled as the "flying saucers" we are talking about here.

[snip]

One of the specific shapes that the report specifically mentions in the second sentence of the Introduction to the Executive summary is the "disc" shape!

"They (UAP - L_S) are typically spherical, disc, torroidal or cigar shaped." - Executive Summary, Introduction, Para 1

However I see you neglected to include the very first sentence that qualifies that statement…

“Reports of UAP (popularly know as 'UFOs') are usually described as colored lights and sometimes as shapes.”

Was that intentional? Clearly the author is saying the description of UFO/UAP as shapes is unusual and if you read the rest of the report I think you will see this is not the unexplained phenomenon of interest. These can usually be attributed to misidentification of conventional objects.

lost_shaman wrote:When I was talking about the early uniform use of "Disk/Disc" by the Military as a reference to the phenomena you yourself said "it means the same thing as “flying saucer”.

Correct, however the context was in reference to the Psychosocial Hypothesis that people were misinterpreting conventional “objects” in the sky as “flying saucers” or “discs” due to the power of suggestion and the “mass hysteria” surrounding Arnold’s sighting.

lost_shaman wrote:Clearly the Condign report is in fact discussing the same "flying saucers" that "we" are talking about right? IMO it is anyway.

Wrong. :) From the Executive Summary...

10. Causes of UAP Reports In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the key UAP report findings are:

- Mis-reporting of man-made vehicles, often observed by perfectly credible witnesses, but with unfamiliar or abnormal features, or in unusual circumstances.

- Reports of natural but not unusual phenomena, which are generally misunderstood at the time by the observer.

- The incidence of natural, but relatively rare phenomena. These may be increasing due to natural changes and possibly accelerated by man-aided factors, such a smoke and dust.

Further:

- No evidence exists to associate phenomena with any particular nation.

- No evidence exists to suggest that the phenomena seen are hostile or under any type of control, other than that of natural physical forces.

- Evidence suggests that meteors and their well-known effects and, possibly some other less-know effects, are responsible for some UAP.

In my opinion, and clearly that of the Condign report, “flying saucers” are a Myth. :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat May 17, 2008 10:02 pm

This description:
lost_shaman wrote:When you say, "You seem to be saying aerodynamics have nothing to do with it", the "it" I was talking about is UFOs/UAP actually observed and reported where the leading hypothesis is that these (a significant percentage of the ~5% of observations that are of interest) are exotic plasmas.


Does not require that the following conjecture be true:

As such the aerodynamics of 'solid bodies' simply would not be at play here nor is it reported.


I don't think you can conclude this, scientifically, until you have understood (and described in a model) whatever physical phenomenon is creating any alleged "exotic plasma". You can't just say something is "exotic" and then go on to make conclusions about it without knowing the mechanism involved. For instance, the reason I am making such a big deal about this is because the aerospace vehicles I work on do create very large plasma "bubbles" as they slow down from orbital velocities on re-entry. In fact, ANY object falling into the atmosphere (be it intelligently created by man, or not) can cause plasma bubbles. So your necessary rejection that these "exotic plasmas" that you conjecture cannot be associated with some form of body must be proven. If you can model plasmas then it would be sufficient to show me how a plasma can be formed without some body to concentrate the thermal wave. Can anyone do this? As far as I know, plasma are VERY common things in our upper atmoshere, but they all seem to be created by some physical body, traveling at plasma-relative velocities though the upper airmass.


You apparently didn't miss my point at all. If you can "stabilize an Avrocar with today's technology" doesn't that just show that the original "Avrocar" was a bad or primitive design in the first place?


I would not call any experimental project that produces a testable vehicle as "bad". And "primitive"? Well, yes, but only because control system science and development technology was in its infancy. I still fail to see what any of this has to do with "exotic plasmas". What is the connection you seek to make between disc shaped objects and exotic plasmas? I remain confused. :?

O.k. well the last time I personally threw a Brick it didn't do much. On the other hand a well thrown Frisbee is quite stable and often impressive.


So make the connection you are trying to argue crystal clear for me. Are you saying that someone or something from outside the atmosphere is throwing (spinning) disc shaped objects into our atmosphere, and causing "exotic plasmas" that are then reported as UFOs or UAPs? Is this what you are saying? If not, please correct me cuz I am searching...

Also reading you're wikipedia reference, design problems fill the article. My first statement concerning the Avrocar in this thread was this...

"If you're talking about the Avro Car, then yeah that was unstable mainly because (of) it's design, IMO." - 5/11/08

Same post I also said...

"Of course this has nothing to do with UFOs/UAP because the interactions of 'UFOs/UAP ' with Fields rather than aerodynamics is apparently being observed." - 5/11/08


So I guess this last part is where I am getting confused. "interactions of 'UFOs/UAP ' Fields rather than aerodynamics". I need to know more precisely what you mean by this. A physical model (yours or someone else's) would help. The reason I ask it because the aerodynamic interactions IS A FIELD EFFECT. The field effect is characterized by pressure distriutions in 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time around ANY OBJECT moving through the atmosphere. So tell me what is meant by "field effect" that can have no effect (or be devoid of) aerodynamic interaction.

I should also, perhaps, point out the obvious. That a plasma that is created in the atmosphere is generally directly related to aerothermodynamics. When something is traveling fast enough in an airmass to CREATE a plasma, there are distinct aerodynamic and thermodynamic interactions.

So help me understand what you are getting at with all this.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat May 17, 2008 10:57 pm

In an attempt to further explore your perception, LS, that plasmas have nothing to do with aerodynamics, I offer just one paper that discusses their connections, and also provides connections to magneto-hydrodynamics.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=get ... =ADA433281

Title : Plasma Influence on Characteristics of Aerodynamic Friction and Separation Flow Location


The title itself mentions something that AD was trying to get you to look at, and understand, earlier on. "Separation". Indeed, AD was also pointing out that a disc-shaped object would have serious SEPARATION FLOW problems when flying in excess of the speed of sound. And hypersonically, the disc would be in even bigger trouble. What AD was pointing out to you was nothing more, nor less than the relationship between aerodynamics, thermodynamics, plasmas, and hypersonic stability.

So you cannot claim that something is operating via a "field effect", and that it has something to do with an "exotic plasma" and then go on to claim that it has nothing to do with aero/thermodynamics. As we see, these fields of science are intimately linked.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Sun May 18, 2008 5:49 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
So you cannot claim that something is operating via a "field effect", and that it has something to do with an "exotic plasma" and then go on to claim that it has nothing to do with aero/thermodynamics. As we see, these fields of science are intimately linked.

Ray


Hey Ray,

Yes, even plasma itself would of course be a part of the atmosphere. As such there is clearly no way to say the atmosphere is not effected in some ways, however the 'bouyant plasmas' (UAP) described in the Condign report do not adhere to classic 'aerodynamics' (Lift and Drag etc,).

Pretty straight forward right?

Let me attempt to spell it out for the sake of clairity.

All (solid body) airframes adhere to 'aerodynamics' including the Avrocar and my 'hovering' RC 'disc' shaped Toy. This is a truth, correct?

Now seperately, as a completely different point entirely, a hypothetical 'bouyant plasma' (UAP) as described in the Condign report does not adhere to the 'aerodynamics' of 'Solid Bodies' simply because it would not be a Solid Body with a fixed aerodynamic (solid - physical) surface to begin with.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sun May 18, 2008 6:36 pm

First a little ARO 101: :)

lost_shaman wrote:Yes, even plasma itself would of course be a part of the atmosphere. As such there is clearly no way to say the atmosphere is not effected in some ways, however the 'bouyant plasmas' (UAP) described in the Condign report do not adhere to classic 'aerodynamics' (Lift and Drag etc,).

Pretty straight forward right?


In "classical" aerodynamics (whatever that is) Lift and Drag are merely the effects of the aerodynamic flowfield (i.e. the resultant forces). The deeper aspect of "classical" aerodynamics deals with 4 simple properties of a fluid (in our case the atmosphere): Pressure, Temperature, Viscosity, and Density. These are also fundamental properties that are the basis of thermodynamics, hence their intimate link. So please give me some quotes where the Condign report refers to these "buoyant plasmas" as not adhering to "classical aerodynamics".

Now seperately, as a completely different point entirely, a hypothetical 'bouyant plasma' (UAP) as described in the Condign report does not adhere to the 'aerodynamics' of 'Solid Bodies' simply because it would not be a Solid Body with a fixed aerodynamic (solid - physical) surface to begin with.


Please provide the citations from the Condign Report that you are relying upon. I admit to not having read the whole report because I am not "into" UFOs (IMO I consider them a waste of my time). Because here is a (one) wiki summary that would seem to say the Condign Report claims the vast majority of atmospheric plasmas ARE, indeed, due to solid physical bodies:

http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Condign_Report# ... UFO_Theory

The material relating to statistical analysis in the Condign Report, however, concludes that meteors are the most significant cause of plasmas that result in UAP reports.


So I am not yet agreeing with your clarifying statement above.

The report refers to the large quantity of matter entering the earth’s atmosphere which “in theory is said to burn up”. The report states that certain issues arise “if it is postulated that” not all this material burns up or impacts the surface. (The report acknowledges that there is “a dearth of information in the scientific press on this possibility”).


Something needs to CAUSE the plasma, right? (I would like an explicit answer to that question from you, if you please)

The report suggests that the postulated further material turns into “meteor plasmas”. The report notes a finding that “peak reporting periods co-incided with meteor show peaks”, and contends that the reports did not involve sightings of “falling meteors” but were in fact sightings of “meteor plasmas”. The report concludes that these sightings “were clearly events which occurred after the plasmas had been formed, were usually at low altitude and exhibited the regularly-seen erratic, bobbing, hovering and climbing motion which would not [sic] be mistaken by the public and other credible witnesses” [Volume 1, Chapter 3, paras 53-65 (particularly at paras 54-55 and 65)]


So it would seem that others reading the Condign Report have not come to the interpretation that it seems you have, AD being one of them. I am open to learning more, but I think it is now time you provide some citations of the Condign Report that support what you are saying... for again, as a guy who knows aerodynamics and thermodynamics well enough to teach it, I am not yet ready to sign up to your idea that there are plasmas which are disconnected from aerothermodynamics.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sun May 18, 2008 6:55 pm

Also:

So I take it we can leave the issue of a "disc" behind, as it has no relevance to what you are talking about viz-a-viz "buoyant plasmas"...correct? We no longer have to try and keep the disc involved with this discussion, as we are talking about plasmas, and what may cause them. Correct?

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Mon May 19, 2008 12:11 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I don't think you can conclude this, scientifically, until you have understood (and described in a model) whatever physical phenomenon is creating any alleged "exotic plasma". You can't just say something is "exotic" and then go on to make conclusions about it without knowing the mechanism involved. For instance, the reason I am making such a big deal about this is because the aerospace vehicles I work on do create very large plasma "bubbles" as they slow down from orbital velocities on re-entry. In fact, ANY object falling into the atmosphere (be it intelligently created by man, or not) can cause plasma bubbles. So your necessary rejection that these "exotic plasmas" that you conjecture cannot be associated with some form of body must be proven. If you can model plasmas then it would be sufficient to show me how a plasma can be formed without some body to concentrate the thermal wave. Can anyone do this? As far as I know, plasma are VERY common things in our upper atmoshere, but they all seem to be created by some physical body, traveling at plasma-relative velocities though the upper airmass.


Ray,

Have you read the Condign report? It discusses UAP (UFOs) as being 'buoyant plasmas' completely devoid of any 'solid body'. There are also other examples of plasmas that are not associated with 'solid bodies' for instance Sprites or Ball lightning.



You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I would not call any experimental project that produces a testable vehicle as "bad". And "primitive"? Well, yes, but only because control system science and development technology was in its infancy. I still fail to see what any of this has to do with "exotic plasmas". What is the connection you seek to make between disc shaped objects and exotic plasmas? I remain confused. :?


Two completely separate discussions.

- The merits of a disc shaped airframe, like my RC Toy, is one discussion.

- The reports of objects in the atmosphere, some of which are disc shaped, as being explained hypothetically as plasmas is the other discussion.
You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
O.k. well the last time I personally threw a Brick it didn't do much. On the other hand a well thrown Frisbee is quite stable and often impressive.


So make the connection you are trying to argue crystal clear for me. Are you saying that someone or something from outside the atmosphere is throwing (spinning) disc shaped objects into our atmosphere, and causing "exotic plasmas" that are then reported as UFOs or UAPs? Is this what you are saying? If not, please correct me cuz I am searching...


Again Ray I'm sorry for the confusion here.

When we discuss the aerodynamic properties of a frisbee that is one thing.

Now if we switch gears and talk about objects reported (UAP), some of which are disc shaped, we are having a completely separate discussion. Where UAP are thought to be plasmas rather than 'solid objects' 'driven' by fields rather than aerodynamics.



You Can Call Me Ray wrote:So I guess this last part is where I am getting confused. "interactions of 'UFOs/UAP ' Fields rather than aerodynamics". I need to know more precisely what you mean by this. A physical model (yours or someone else's) would help. The reason I ask it because the aerodynamic interactions IS A FIELD EFFECT. The field effect is characterized by pressure distriutions in 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time around ANY OBJECT moving through the atmosphere. So tell me what is meant by "field effect" that can have no effect (or be devoid of) aerodynamic interaction.


Again Ray I'm sorry for the confusion. When talking about UAP as described in the Condign report as being 'buoyant plasmas' electrical and magnetic fields are at play rather than the basic aerodynamics of heavier-than-air flight. Does that make sense?



You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I should also, perhaps, point out the obvious. That a plasma that is created in the atmosphere is generally directly related to aerothermodynamics. When something is traveling fast enough in an airmass to CREATE a plasma, there are distinct aerodynamic and thermodynamic interactions.

So help me understand what you are getting at with all this.
Ray


I really do want to help you understand what I'm talking about. I completely agree that plasma can be created "when something is traveling fast enough in an airmass". That is true. But it is also true that there are other types of plasma occurring in the atmosphere that are not created in that way. Take Sprites as an example. Recently discovered to be house sized balls of plasma traveling vertically in the atmosphere at 0.1c.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... crets.html

O.k. so if you are still following me here, using the Sprite example of a naturally occurring plasma, basic aerodynamics of lift and drag etc., do not seem to be responsible for the motion of the Sprite through the atmosphere. That makes sense does it not?

Now if we start to talk about objects reported in the atmosphere that are seemingly unexplained, then I feel like I'm perfectly entitled to discuss UAP as described by the Condign report and observed in the Hessdalen Valley. These are long lived plasmas, and like Sprites basic aerodynamics of lift and drag etc., do not seem to be responsible for their motion.

If you're still following me, that's all I'm trying to say although there are still lots of details open for discussion.

Hope that helps.

L_S
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Mon May 19, 2008 12:41 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Also:

So I take it we can leave the issue of a "disc" behind, as it has no relevance to what you are talking about viz-a-viz "buoyant plasmas"...correct? We no longer have to try and keep the disc involved with this discussion, as we are talking about plasmas, and what may cause them. Correct?

Ray


I just don't see how we could do that Ray as the Condign report specifically states UAP occur in the disc shape.

Also if you admit to not reading the Condign report because you are "not "into" UFOs", then why should I have to waste my own FREE TIME defending myself for referencing the Condign report and manually 'transcribing' the report for you simply because you are too lazy yourself to read the damn thing?

I'm sorry but this really does upset me because I am spending my FREE TIME defending myself for referencing the Condign report that I have to manually transcribe, when most of this is spelled out in the Condign report if one only reads the report!

You guy's demand I asnswer your questions and post retractions for minor details and I'm saying I'm sorry for confusion over and over again on this thread, when you don't even bother to read the report I'm referencing?! That bothers me.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Mon May 19, 2008 5:43 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I am not "into" UFOs (IMO I consider them a waste of my time).


So why do you even bother?

I can at least claim to have a reason to care after a 2002 UAP observation.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron